Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 392

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 385←Archive 390Archive 391Archive 392Archive 393Archive 394Archive 395

Added source but tag still present

Hello. My page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Giordano has been edited and a proper reliable reference added. However, the tag stating "You need a reliable source or the page will be deleted" is still present. I thought once I added the source this would be removed. What am I doing wrong? Thank you. Lutrition (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lutrition hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Ideally, you would have everything in the article referenced, and the references would all be reliable sources. I'm not familiar with the one you used, but at this stage it would probably not be sufficient because it doesn't look like it would have the same status as a respectable newspaper or magazine. And that's just one reference. It looks like pretty much the whole article is unreferenced.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lutrition. The reason why the tag is still on the article is that no one, including you, has removed it. It doesn't happen automatically. There are bigger issues, though. The reference is formatted as a bare URL. You should flesh it out as explained in Referencing for beginners. The reference is an interview in a publication of unknown reliability. In general, interviews alone do not establish notabikity as they are not fully independent. The general expectation is that an article will contain more than one independent, reliable source that devotes significant coverage to the topic. Speaking frankly, I am unsure that this person is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It says that I only need 1 reliable reference. I've established that. The publication I've linked to is a very reputable source. I also don't know how to remove the tag. How do I do that manually?

Lutrition (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lutrition, articles about living people need one reliable source to prevent their immediate deletion, but there is also the general requirement that in order for a subject to be included on Wikipedia, it must be considered notable. In short, this means that it requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and citing one source isn't enough to establish this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
From your username, it appears you may have a conflict of interest, as you have titled the infobox "Louis Giordano (Loutrition)" - please see and follow our guidance on conflict of interest here - Arjayay (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is just a username. I've written the article about someone else.

Lutrition (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Around here we assume good faith about other editors, Lutrition, so we're going to take you at your word that you're neither Louis Giordano nor someone closely connected to him, and that your choice of username is just a coincidence, depite the fact that the Louis Giordano article you created is full of quite personal details about Giordano's early life and family which are not supported by the one source you provided, leaving us all wondering where you got those details from.
The article has now been nominated for deletion. If you wish, you may contest the deletion, but in my opinion no amount of work on the article will make it suitable for Wikipedia, unless and until new sources written about Mr. Giordano are published. The absolute minimum for a Wikipedia article's notability standard is two articles (or books or other media) from a reliable publisher — reliable by Wikipedia's definition — written primarily about the subject (that is, not an article about something or someone else that merely mentions them) that are not interviews. There is content about Louis Giordano other than the interview portion in the article you linked to, so, if another source can be found, I personally might consider that source eligible to contribute toward Louis Giordano's notability, but you should know that other Wikipedia editors would probably disagree, and decisions are made by consensus. In any case two sources is the bare minimum, three are better, so you should plan to find two more sources... or give up until more sources are published.
You should also know that providing two reliable sources writing substantially about Louis Giordano is not all you have left to do. Presently the source you have provided is in the form of a bare URL, and needs to have its title, author, date of publication and other details included. There is a handy form built into the editing page you can use to help you do citations; just click where it says "Cite." You (or another editor, if one is interested) will also have to put inline citations in the article, so that readers know which source proves what information in the article. And any remaining unsourced information would then have to be removed from the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living persons. The image currently used in the article also might not be licensed appropriately for use on Wikipedia, but I haven't checked on that.
I know this must seem very daunting, but all Wikipedia articles are held to the same standard. We are building an encyclopedia, so not just anything can be included. Teahouse volunteers are always here to help you with understanding Wikipedia policies, though! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

how do I add a comment on a talk page?

I am just starting and am interested to revise an article that is a candidate for deletion, as I think there is information pertinent to make the article appropriate for wiki. I'd like to post a quick note on the page that I've done some research that I think will help. I notice the comments all begin with a bullet point- is that how I start a comment? thanks! PH Solution (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PH Solution. Yes, assuming this is an articles for deletion discussion, you would click edit at the top of the page, then after the last person entry, write your entry starting with an asterisk, which will format as a bullet, your nomination !vote (support oppose, etc.) with tripled apostrophes around it (which will format as boldface) and then write your point. At the end, don't forget to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) (as I see you did here). Putting that together, the entry might look something like this:

*'''Oppose'''. I have located multiple reliable, secondary sources discussing this topic in detail so it appears to be notable. For example: ____, ___ and ____.--~~~~

By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I am trying my new-found skill on this answer. I appreciate the help. And I won't use the shorthand of wiki. Is there an acceptable shorthand, such as WP?PH Solution (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK- a new question, oh helpful wikipedia people! What does it mean to move somethine to "draft space"? I did a search and nothing came up. Is this like the sandbox? And if something is moved to draft space, can it be edited and then moved back when finished?PH Solution (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@PH Solution: Draft space, as mentioned here, is when you have an article that you want to work on before moving it into article space. They are often found with Draft: in front of the article title. Zappa24Mati 03:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thinkers50 Article

There used to be an article for Thinkers50 - it was taken down and archived, but I'm having difficulty finding any record of it. I know there was one - it needed a lot of updates and was poorly cited. Now I'm ready with good sources. Any help RWymant@lk 00:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@RayWyman: Looking around, it used to be at Thinkers 50, but was speedily deleted, before being userfied and moved here. Zappa24Mati 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@ZappaOMati: Wow. Thanks! The organization has matured and I have found good citations that can rehabilitate this article to Wiki-standards. Recommended course? RWymant@lk 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the page has been moved into Kpbizbuzz's userspace, RWyman, it would be courteous to ask them whether you can edit the page there, or if they would prefer to move the page to Draft space before you edit it. You can do that by clicking "new section" on their talk page. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The only problem is that Kpbizbuzz apparently hasn't edited since 2010, so I doubt he'd be reachable. I would suggest just copy/pasting it into Ray's own userpage, but that would screw up the revision history. Zappa24Mati 04:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed that, ZappaOMati. You're right, it seems unlikely they would show up to discuss the matter after five years' absence. RayWyman, I am going to boldly move the page into draft space for you. That will leave a redirect behind in Kpbizbuzz's userspace in case they ever do come back, but more importantly it will preserve the page history. It will shortly be available at Draft:Thinkers 50 (the link will automatically turn from red to blue once it's working). —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Truly appreciated. RWymant@lk 04:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

HELP

I have been trying to place a page on Wikipedia for some time without success. I'm a martial artist, not a novelist. "World Head of Family Sokeship Council" is the organization I belong to and is what I'm trying to put up. If anyone could help, please do.

Master Bob Jenkins

I am at my wits end. I have already fallen on my swords twice and shot myself in the food and none of it seem to help.

(Master Bob Jenkins (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC))

Hello, Master Bob Jenkins, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed your off-site contact information from your posting here, as I believe it is against policy for Wikipedia to display such information.
I presume by your saying you "have been trying to place a page on Wikipedia for some time without success" you mean that you have created the article but it has been deleted. There's a very good chance this is because your organization does not meet Wikipedia's standard for notability, which is more complicated than just whether someone or something is "important" or "popular"; it's explained in that link. It's a fairly high bar, and many people and organizations cannot meet it. This does not mean your organization is not important or popular, just that it is not eligible to have a Wikipedia article about it.
Actually, I now see that other editors have tried to explain Wikipedia's standard for notability, and also Wikipedia standards for citing references, to you multiple times, on your talk page and elsewhere. Please stop and read those two pages until you understand them. Don't just give the pages a quick glance, decide it's too complicated (or shouldn't apply to you), and ignore these important policies. If the World Head of Family Sokeship Council article is ever to have any chance of staying on Wikipedia, you must understand and comply with these policies. All Wikipedia articles are held to these standards; there are no exceptions.
(And all that isn't even getting into your conflict of interest as a member of an organization wanting to write the Wikipedia article about that organization...) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Master Bob Jenkins. I appreciate that you are frustrated; I suspect it may be because you are attempting an impossible task. One way of looking at this is the issue of notability, as GrammarFascist has explained. Another approach that might be helpful is to look at your words: "plac[ing] a page" and "put[ting] up" an organisation are phrases appropriate to social media or directories, and not a good fit for what we do here. I suggest thinking rather of "writing an article about", and bearing in mind that a Wikipedia article should be close to 100% based on what other people, unconnected with the subject, have published about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

CAN NOT CHECKING OUT THE WIKI COMMONS! (networking, firewall, proxy & coding troubles)

Hey guys, i have to tell you something related to networking staffs of wikipedia community!!!


talk direct to bugfinder: "User:MS2054 or me, Amir R. Pourkashef 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

[<big> tags removed from above by GrammarFascist]

Hello, Amir R. Pourkashef, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please refrain from using html tags to make your question bigger. As you can see, doing so, and putting your question in the wrong place by editing the page directly instead of using the "Ask a question" button at the top of the page, has made it take longer for your question to be addressed.
The Teahouse does not really deal with bug reports, which I believe is what you are trying to do. If you and User:MS2054 have a bug report, the Village Pump's Technical page is the correct place for it.
If I have misunderstood your question, please provide a broader explanation of the problem so that someone can help you further. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate you GrammerFascist. Amir R. Pourkashef 17:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

Change page title in url

how can I change an article title used in article's url? I have this page Adolphson Observatory and want to change it to include the college name that hosts the observatory something similar to Astronomical_Observatory_(University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign) Rami.shareef (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably by doing a move and changing the entire article title. Go to the little toolbar at the top of your screen and click on 'more'. The move button will come up. Change the title to include the college name, and be sure to leave a summary of why you changed the title, so somebody else doesn't change it back. Hope that helps. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Rami.shareef, the above explanation is correct for how to do what you want to do. However, I believe what you want to do should not be done. Our policy on disambiguation of titles is pretty clear. Unless there is another entity with the exact same name, we do not disambiguate the title. John from Idegon (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

adding a pic to article

How do I add pic to my article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannibros (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Upload your photo to [1] and then transfer it to the article by typing the code that appears under the photo once it's uploaded, into the place in the article where you want it to appear. Add double brackets around the code ([ [ ] ]). The picture should appear. By the way, be sure to use a "thumb" tag, so your code should look something like this example--[ [ photo . J p g | thumb | and your caption] ]. If you don't use the thumb, the picture will be huge. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Hello Wannibros and welcome to the Teahouse. For learning about how to place pictures in articles, here are two excellent "how-to" pages for you to read: Picture tutorial and the excellent Images for beginners. You must also keep in mind that you can not upload any picture you want in an article. This is not like Facebook or Twitter. The picture has to be totally free from any copyright, well sort of... the copyright of what pictures are permitted or not is veritable maze where only the bravest dare to go! The best way is if you ask a more experienced editor (or here at the Teahouse) about the picture first. Just leave a link to the picture you want for your article. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 19:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

B-class

How do I nominate an article for B-class? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 22:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dunkleosteus77. B-class articles and lower levels do not require a a formal organized group assessment, as Good Articles and Featured articles do. Any individual editor can complete a review. Please see WP:BCLASS for the criteria. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to add the logo available on official website to the article 2015 Karnataka Premier League, Can it be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasprabhu933 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)

[I have moved this question from the bottom of the page, where it was apparently placed mistakenly by the asker (or as the result of a bug), so it will be seen and addressed. I'm at a loss to understand how it got onto the page without a signature and timestamp, though. edit: autosign has now appeared]
Logos are copyrighted by the company or organization they represent. However, within very narrow Fair Use guidelines, some logos can be used on some articles. In this case, the article is about the organization whose logo it is, so putting a low-resolution copy of the logo on the page would probably pass the Fair Use test. Do you need help uploading an appropriately-sized copy of the image and/or placing it in the article?
Also, please remember to always sign your questions at the Teahouse with 4 ~~~~ tildes, Srinivasprabhu933. If the volunteers answering your question know who you are, we can make it so Wikipedia automatically alerts you to our replies. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very muchsrini (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? "poular" for "popular"

This link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=poular&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go was given to me by an online contact. At first sight, that looks like way too many results for a collection of typos.

The Urban Dictionary definition of poular makes me suspect a raid on Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Narky Blert. When I looked at it there were only 27 of them. Considering that six of them were false positives with a foreign word; it is not an uncommon word and not an implausible typo of that word; that Wikipedia has almost five million articles; and that when I look at five of the ones I fixed they were all added by different people at different times, I don't think this is part of any vandalism effort. Other typos often have many more iterations. See Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Also worth keeping in mind is that "Poular" is an alternate name for the Fula language of West Africa, so may be used legitimately in articles about linguistics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Table formatting; submission template for draft articles

Hello, Teahouse, welcome to my questions. :)

First, I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to set the columns of a table to center text within them. (I know I could just put <center> tags in every cell, but it's a large enough table that that would be tedious.) I did read Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting, but there didn't seem to be anything there that applied, though to be honest some of it was over my head.

My other question is, what is the template that should be added to the top of Draft:Thinkers 50 so that it can be submitted when RWyman (the user working on it) feels it's ready? I know there is one, but I'm not sure what it's called, so I can't search for it. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey GF. I hesitated to answer because I don't know the answer for the tables question other than style="text-align:center" and looking at what people who do seem to know have said in the past, e.g. this (old) thread indicated there was a way to center all using <table style="text-align:center"> but that might be obsolete. If you do have to do each column, you might use a search and replace e.g., dropping it into Word and replacing all |- with that plus the centering code. Anyway, the answer to your second question is {{subst:Submit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:Submit}} performs the submission. I think the question was about how to make a box with a submit link somebody else can use later. Wikipedia:Articles for creation does it with {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}} <!--- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. --->. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. I have wrestled with tables for so long and it has never stopped being a frustrating experience. One day an extremely friendly editor visited my draft page and fixed everything for me. He is a great editor. I will post his name to your talk page. Best Regards,

Bfpage via mobile edit

Thank you, Bfpage, PrimeHunter and Fuhghettaboutit. I have taken care of putting a submit-draft button on Draft:Thinkers 50, and now have some idea how to start experimenting towards getting the content of the table in European Health Examination Survey to center. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank YOU GF for leading the charge - and to Fuhghettaboutit PrimeHunter Bfpage for the assist - you folks are the reason it all works - tremendous help. RWymant@lk 14:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, it turns out that putting style="text-align:center" immediately after class="wikitable" does indeed yield a table in which every cell's contents are centered. Thank you again for your help! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. As you could tell from the tenor of my answer, I am not "table confident":-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Being AutoConfirmed

How can I become autoconfirmed on Wikipedia? Please either reply here or my talk page! The Pancake  of Heaven!  13:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are already autoconfirmed Supdiop (T🔹C) 14:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Pancake of Heaven!: Normally your account needs to be four days old and has made 10 edits in any namespace. You can also request it at WP:RPE. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! The Pancake  of Heaven!  14:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Article not being speedily deleted

Greetings, wise residents of the Teahouse. I came across a completely empty article, Friction buffer stop, so I tagged it for speedy deletion. Two days later, the tag is still there and the article has not been deleted. Even more curiously, the counter at the bottom of the CSD notice always says the page was last edited 0 seconds ago. I would be grateful if somebody who understands such matters would look at it and see if I have messed up somehow... Gronk Oz (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have solved the issue by redirecting the page to Buffer stop which briefly discusses the friction type. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Perfect - thanks, @Roger (Dodger67):. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Form task force, or redirect to one article?

I've been a big fan of Hank the Cowdog for a very long time. Since becoming a WP editor, I've noticed that while the main Hank the Cowdog article is good, the articles for individual books within the series are pretty bad or don't exist at all. (I created two, only to have them blanked and redirected several times, despite the fact that they were sourced and clearly written.) There is a request on Talk:Hank the Cowdog from 2013 about possibly forming a task force for creating good-quality articles for each book, and when I contacted that user they said they were still interested. My question is, should we go ahead and try to form this task force, or should we just go ahead and create an article titled something like, 'List of Hank the Cowdog titles', that would have a paragraph describing each book and giving brief mention to the 'guest star' characters who appeared in that episode alone? (And then maybe create spin-off full-length articles later, if more people get intetested?) I'll probably be doing major work on this. Thanks. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Note: Moved question added at end of page to top for greater visibility. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I used the Ask a Question button so I don't know how it got there. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 22:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Hi User:White Arabian mare, A "formal" task force would probably be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature and a post there inviting people to join in an improvement effort would be appropriate, whether or not "formal" task force status is needed/desired/granted.
And yes, its generally best practice to start from the biggest topic and spin off child article topic as it becomes clear what is available in the reliable sources - so a listing of all the books in the series is a better next step than individual books.
It is also important to keep in mind that content should be structured around what/how the reliable sources cover the subject, not necessarily the intricate details and distinctions that fans can sometimes obsess about.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a known bug that sometimes makes questions submitted via the Ask a Question button appear at the bottom of the page instead of the top, White Arabian mare. Mz7, thanks for moving the question up here.
I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that the next step would seem to be a list article.
(PS TRPoD, it looks like you forgot to sign your comment, and the autosign bot hasn't been by yet...) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
fixed. Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to all; will post at WikiProject Children's Literature to get opinions there, but I'll probably just create the list-type article in the end..White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

References

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Weihrauch_HW_70

The information on this page is from the manufacturers product page and the reference point to this page. What more can I do; manufacturers like this don't write books?

193.91.179.122 (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 193.91.179.122. If you can't cite to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the manufacturer and which treat this topic in detail (see Wikipedia:Notability as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability), then there may be nothing you can do, and that no separate article is warranted on a particular model. (This is as opposed to possibly adding material to the existing article on Weihrauch, and possibly making a redirect from the title of the model to the article.) Often 'subarticles' on specific products of a manufacturer are simply not warranted. It's possible there are significant sources you could access and use, e.g., a google books search indicates this book may have material on the specific model which can probably only be accessed at a library, but after doing some searches for such reliable sources treating the topic in detail, I do not think a stand-alone article can be sustained. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I see... and I also see that a wikipedia needs a lot of cleaning in order to meet this criteria. This one, fx: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihrauch_HW45 - please delete!

Vestlenning (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm... There are indeed book sources for the subject. There are also expert blogs that could be used. Personal blogs cannot be used, but blogs that are dedicated to the subject might be useful as "opinion", citing the source in the text itself. There are probably a lot more sources that you simply were not aware of.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, of the nearly 5000000 articles there are a good many that do not meet the requirements for a stand alone article. But that we have not been able to clean up spilt milk over there, does not mean that we should ignore the spilt milk right here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, Mark, except that there are far fewer when you do a targeted search in quotes, because the topical scope of the article is a particular model, and that is what sufficient sources, treating the subject in detail, are needed for. Even that search includes false positives, which can be kept out by a too-restrictive, on the nose search for <"Weihrauch HW 70" OR "Weihrauch HW70">--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up a page

Intel Extreme Masters looks pretty horrible and is long due for a cleanup. Does anybody have any ideas on how to make the page look better?Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I gave the page a brief skim, and I wouldn't characterize it as "horrible". There don't seem to be any unreferenced assertions of fact marked, I didn't spot any grammar or spelling errors, and there is quite a bit of information present. Personally I think the list format for the winners is easier for readers to parse than equivalent prose would be, particularly for at-a-glance comparisons of which team led when. Putting the information into a series of tables might be an alternative.
Nevertheless, if you feel you can improve the article, be bold and edit away! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
the flag icons appear to be all in violation of WP:MOSFLAG as merely indicating participant's nationality and not official state representation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TRPoD, I hadn't been aware of the policy of using flag icons only when a team or individual is officially representing their country. I have thus removed all the icons from Intel Extreme Masters, replacing each one with the name of the country (or the EU or continent of Europe as appropriate), and I also cleaned up some formatting issues in the article and made a couple of other tweaks. In the process of replacing the bare URLs with full citations, I noticed that many of the article's sources seem to me to be to primary sources — that is, to sources which are the subject of the article, or closely affiliated with the subject. If I have misunderstood, Prisencolin (which is very possible, as I know virtually nothing about e-sports), feel free to remove the {{primary sources}} tag I put at the top of the page. And feel free to come back to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

all help wanted/waterfallcutoff

I need help on how do I put my novel into wikipedia so it can be noticed. I dont know where to start? 69.121.217.137 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 69.121.217.137.
You have things a little backwards. First you become noticed and then you get an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to be an advertising vector, we merely collect what other people have already found notable and worth writing about.
Also as someone with a conflict of interest, you should not be the one writing about you or your book, people with such close connection to the subject are rarely able to cover the subject from an appropriately neutral point of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
After your book has gotten enough coverage to meet general notability guidelines and book guidelines, I suggest using articles for creation where third-party users such as myself can review it. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Responses to edits to the Banjo Cafe entry/page

Hi - I have been trying to make an entry to the talk section of the Banjo Cafe page that was recently created. The editors have chosen to delete all mentions of many of the bands that played there and feel the page is only the reminiscence of the former nightclub owner. I disagree and wanted to make my objections show on talk. James Cooper's response to this shows up on the page, but the only way I can get my reactions recorded is to click on his talk button. It does not show immediately when I click on the Banjo Cafe "talk" button.

Doesn't the talk button operate as a venue for people to discuss things like this? And, if so, shouldn't it show all the responses on a single page as one would see a blog? Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks for your help. I will be looking for an answer on my page Lkey-o (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lkey-o. (Nearly) every page on Wikipedia has its own (separate) talk page. The article The Banjo Cafe has a talk page Talk:The Banjo Cafe for discussing improvements to that article, and that is where Jameslcooper posted. Your user page User:Lkey-o (which nobody has created yet, and so the link is in red) has a talk page User talk:Lkey-o, which is primarily for people to start discussions with you on any relevant subject. User Jameslcooper has a talk page User talk:Jameslcooper, for discussion with him.
I think you have been assuming that any talk button takes you to a single place to have a discussion - but Wikipedia has nearly 5 million articles, so that would be quite unworkable. In trying to reply to Jameslcooper, you first put a comment on his talk page, then you didn't know where that was, and so you put it on your own talk page, and edited it there. If you pick the link to the article talk page above - or go to the article, and pick the Talk tab at the top - you can reply to Jameslcooper. But note that the main criterion for what should go into Wikipedia is what people unconnected with a subject have thought it worth publishing about the subject. The opinions or personal recollections of any editor (you, me, Jameslcooper, TheRedPenOfDoom or even Jimmy Wales) have no place in a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello @Lkey-o: and welcome to the TeaHouse!
It sounds like you have 2 issues:a technical usability issue and a content issue.
I think the technical issue was because the original poster on the talk page did not create a section header. without a header, the two options are "edit this page" and "new section". I think you chose the second which would open up a blank new discussion and not show the previous post. now there are section heads on the page and so you can respond to the particular discussion by clicking the edit on top of that section.
the second issue is content. At Wikipedia, content in articles must be verifiable has having been published by a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and we present the content as it is presented by those sources.
the videos of the bands , while an amazing collection of materials, are "primary source" documents , which have little value to Wikipedia until scholar or reporter takes them and writes about them. We then would quote and summarize the scholar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

create new article in sandbox

I want to make a new article my Sandbox. I want to call it Kye Fleming, under User: Eagledj. Can you tell me the steps to do this? EagledjEagledj (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Eagledj, and welcome to the Teahouse. (As you can see, you don't need to type out your username at the end of your comments here or on talk pages; typing four tildes "signs" your name automatically along with a timestamp.)
There's probably a more elegant way to do it, but try this: In the search box at the upper right-hand corner of the page, type (or copy and paste) User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming. You will be brought to a page that tells you that article doesn't exist yet, but gives you the option to create the page. That should give you a new sandbox page with the name you want. Feel free to come back with any further questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I move a page from my profile to become an official wikipedia article?

Hello, I have an article called "Evoland 2" on my page. I want to make this its own article. Currently on Wikipedia, when searching Evoland 2, you are redirected to the page on Shiro Games, the developers of Evoland 2.

There is a small little section on that page, and this is where you are redirected. I want to change this so that you are redirected to the page that I created.

Thank you for help. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EggsInMyPockets, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a brief look at the draft you have in your user sandbox, and it looks pretty good! However, there are a few changes I would suggest before you make it an official article.
First, a few of the current references are "bare URLs" — information like the article title, author, and publication date are missing. There's a handy tool you can use to do citations right in the editing page: just click where it says "Cite" at the right-hand side of the blue bar at the top of the edit window, then click "Templates" at the left-hand side of the second blue bar that appears. "Cite web" will be the template to use for most or all of your citations, but note that you'll need to click the "Show/hide extra fields" button to enter publication dates. ("Access date" is just the day you viewed the webpage; clicking the icon next to it will fill it in automatically in DMonthYYYY format.)
Second, you use several primary sources in the current version of the page. For Wikipedia purposes, it's better, for example, to cite a review of the game that states it's available from Steam than to cite the actual Steam page. This is because the reviewer is an uninvolved, and thus presumed impartial, third party.
After you have resolved those issues, just click on the "More" tab at the top of the page next to "Read | Edit | View history" and then click "Move"; on-screen instructions should take it from there. Feel free to come back here if you have any more questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for all the advice. I've done everything that you advised, except I'm kind of lost when you are talking about the publication dates. I've got the little phrases that say "Retrieved on" next to the references. You think that this is sufficient? Thank you. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @EggsInMyPockets:. It is good to include publication date where it is known - for example, your second reference to PC Gamer has a publication date of May 16, 2015 (at the top of the web page). It is also good to include the author (Tom Sykes) and the name of the work (PC Gamer) where they are known. Of course, this sort of information is not always stated on Web pages. But where it is, put it in. As an example, I put this information into the PC Gamer reference so you can see how it's done. One final suggestion to cap off this fine work: at the end it mentions " the price of 19.99" but does not indicate what currency - it would be good to say if that is US dollars, or Euros, or whatever. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New page creation anonymously

Hello... How do I create a wiki page for a new actor anonymously? I do not want it to state who created the page at the bottom of it. Itsmskali (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Itsmskali, welcome to the Teahouse! Theoretically, all contributions to Wikipedia are anonymous, as there is no connection between your username and your real-world identity unless your username is your real name. (If it is, you may choose to either change your username or abandon your current account and create a new account.) Also, Wikipedia does not state the creator's name at the end of each page—if you view Wikipedia on a mobile device, the username of the editor who last edited the page will always be presented at the bottom of the page. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia without a username, that's okay, but to create articles without a username, you will have to use the Articles for Creation process, by which you must submit a draft of your new article for review by an experienced editor before it is published. Please be aware that editing without a username will reveal your IP address, and you must not attempt to deceive the community by claiming you do not have a registered account. With regards to creating new articles, I strongly recommend giving Wikipedia:Your first article a read; it explains some good tips and our basic requirements for articles so that you can avoid having your contributions deleted. If you are stuck, feel free to leave a follow up question and we'll be happy to clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
For attribution of copyright, the account that created every edit is always permanently tracked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Lisa Magary "worthy of notice?"

I was looking up Lisa Magary on Google and saw that she didn't have a Wikipedia article. She has about a dozen YouTube videos totaling over 500,000 views. Is she "worthy of notice" by Wikipedia standards? SomeRandomWords (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi SomeRandomWords, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not familiar with Lisa Magary, so I will instead give more general advice. By far the most important thing which new page patrollers look at when evaluating whether a topic is "worthy of notice" for Wikipedia is sources. A common misconception is that in order to have a Wikipedia article, a topic must be famous or have a lot of views on YouTube. This is false; sometimes, even well-known topics are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The actual test which Wikipedians use is outlined at Wikipedia:Notability. To put it simply, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Basically, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only writes about what reliable sources have written about. Reliable sources include things like newspapers, reputable websites, magazines, published books, academic journals, etc. If reliable sources do not discuss a topic in meaningful detail, it is likely Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on that topic. A quick Google search for "Lisa Magary" doesn't turn up that many reliable sources at first glance, but a further investigation may be warranted. If you are looking to create an article, I strongly recommend giving Wikipedia:Your first article a read. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free, but officially released images in Mecca Crane Collapse article?

I've done some work on the Mecca crane collapse article, and I would like to add an image of the actual accident. I've looked rather extensively on Google Images and Wikipedia Commons and can find no free or appropriately licensed image. Currently the article is illustrated only by an 2010 image of the Masjid al-Haram.

I've found two good images that are credited as having been released by the "Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense" AP Link to Photos. I know that Wikipedia's non-free use rationales sometimes allows for the use of "press release" photos. I think these photos could be uploaded under a non-free use rationale, but I'm not sure how to write it. They have been widely reproduced by news sources (see: Crane Collapse 1: Large, Crane Collapse 1: Medium, Crane Collapse 2: Large, Crane Collapse 2: Large)

I started a non-free use rationale, but I'm not sure if I'm going in the right direction here, or even if it is applicable: 

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = Mecca Crane Collapse
| Source            = Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense (via AP) http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2015-09-11-ML-Saudi-Crane-Collapse/id-df55c31fe2904032a04adc0b5863c7b4
| Article           = [[Mecca crane collapse]]
| Portion           = All
| Low_resolution    = 512x385
| Purpose           = To illustrate the topic of the article
| Replaceability    = No free equivalent found via Google Image Search and Commons Image Search
| other_information = Released to media by Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense. Image has been widely used in multiple news sources.
}}

Any help would be appreciated. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Carl Henderson:
Copyright is tricky!
The first thing is that if the release is not a fully compliant CC BY-SA 3.0 License release for free use, reuse and adaptation, then it doesn't matter that it was "released" or not.
if it is not freely released, then it might be able to be used under the WP:FAIR use doctrine, but it MUST meet ALL of the WP:NFCCP criteria. The first one is "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Its not "i did a google search and didn't find one" it needs to be more : "Everyone who holds a copyright image would have specific reason that they would not release it under a free license." that is a hard argument to make . particularly when you did find images with varying levels of use given. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carl Henderson. Have you tried asking about this at WP:NFCR or WP:MCQ? To add on to what TRPod posted above, I think the you might have problems with satisfying WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 for such an image. Meeting the no free equivalent criterion does not mean that a free version of a non-free image needs to currently exist, but that there only needs to be a possibility that a free version could be made available someday. It might be argued that somebody took a photo of the accident site which they could upload to Wikipedia as free. It doesn't have to be exactly the same photos you linked to, but it could provide equivalent information to the reader. For example, this photo seems to have been taken the day after the accident, so it's not unreasonable to assume that there are others like it which have also been taken and which could possibly be uploaded as free.
In addition to NFCC#1, you will need to establish the "contextual significance" of the image. Non-free images are generally not allowed for purely "decorative" reasons, so establishing contextual significance can be fairly hard sometimes because it has to be demonstrated the image significantly enhances the reader's understanding in a way that cannot be achieved through text alone, so that not having the image is detrimental to that understanding. In some cases, this can be relatively easy to do when the image is used within the infobox, but it tends to be much harder to do so outside of the infobox because this typically means that the image itself needs to be the subject of sourced commentary. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Carl Henderson. In the wake of major news events, amateur photographers often post very good photos on social media. I have had some success in reaching out to such photographers and asking them to consider uploading some of their photos to Wikimedia Commons. Professionals are usually reluctant to release their work under a Creative Commons license, but some amateurs may feel honored to have their work included in Wikipedia. Be prepared to offer "hand holding" for the technical details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank all of you for your advice. I will look to see what I can find on social media. Perhaps I can find someone willing to release a photo as Cullen328 suggested. (What I was looking for was one photo of the accident for the infobox). Carl Henderson (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse editors, I would like to add this photo found at http://asianwiki.com/File:Seo_Ye-Ji-p1.jpg to Seo Ye-ji's Wikipedia page. Could you help talk me through the process of how you would find proper copyright information for this photo and go about uploading it. Thank you KoreanEntertainment (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, KoreanEntertainment and welcome to the Teahouse. As things stand, this can't be used on Wikipedia. The source you link to above is a wiki, but the user who uploaded it there didn't indicate what the ultimate source of the image is, nor is any copyright license specified. Unless that user took the photo, or the copyright holder licensed it to allow use on asianwiki.com, its appearance there might be a copyright infringement. In any case, Wikipedia cannot accept this or any image until the author (photographer) and the original publication of the image is identified. (There are exceptions for images published before 1923, or otherwise clearly out of copyright, but they wouldn't apply here.) You can't determine the proper copyright information until you know, and disclose, accurate origination and publication information. Even if those are found, this image would only be usable if the copyright holder (most often the person who took the photo, but not always) released it under a free license, one that allows anyone anywhere to reuse or modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. In some cases permission of the subject might also be required. DES (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response DES I think I will give up on using images. Its so hard to find the right image you want to use and have the proper licences to use them. KoreanEntertainment (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

question about where cited works appears on the page

I WROTE THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO DATHUS A FEW DAYS AGO, BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT I ACTUALLY SENT IT!!

Hi Dathus. Thanks for contacting me. I have a technical question you will probably be able to answer. I have written a few paragraphs under the heading "Research Assignment 1." I am required to list a Wikipedia article as Work Cited. When I did so, the cite dropped to the bottom under References. I was expecting a "Works Cited" section to appear directly under my entry. Can you shed any light on this? Thank you. Jlefish (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Jlefish (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jlefish, and welcome to the Teahouse. You successfully "sent" your message on your own talk page, but because you put it there and not on Dathus's talk page, and didn't include [[User:Dathus|Dathus]] in your message, Dathus probably didn't see it. He should see this conversation now, though, because I used a similar code in my reply, so Wikipedia software will send him a message like the message you received about me mentioning you here.
To answer the question you asked Dathus, Wikipedia uses what's called inline citations. It's normal for the actual information about each reference in an article to "drop" to the References section, leaving just a superscript number like so[1] in the body of the article. So the References section in the page in your sandbox you have been editing is correct in terms of format. You should know, however, that Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source (by Wikipedia's standard for references) and should not be cited in actual Wikipedia articles outside your sandbox. I will leave some more links about writing for Wikipedia on your talk page. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

need help in editing footnotes for Draft:Therr_Maitz

Hello! I'm trying to put an article about Therr Maitz. The last comment I got was to "cite your sources using footnotes" Sorry, I cannot recognize what to do for sure because of my english (it's not strong enough) Please, help me to fix the problem Heldexa~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Heldexa~enwiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will try to explain simply for you. (Your English is much better than my Russian!)
English Wikipedia uses something called "inline citations" in articles, to show what information in the article is based on. Inline citations cause a number, like so[1], to appear in the article indicating a "footnote", more information at the bottom of the page. Every fact in an English Wikipedia article should be cited to a reliable source. (Wikipedia's standard for what "reliable" means is that the source must have been published, by someone who is not connected to the topic of the article, and someone with a reputation for fact-checking, such as a newspaper or book publisher, or a television news program.) Inline citation footnotes help readers check the source for each fact.
To put the reliable sources proving each fact into the Therr Maitz article you are writing, you will want to use what we call citation templates. There is a handy shortcut for these, so you don't have to do them by hand. While editing your draft, look for the sky-blue bar above the window where you type. At the right-hand side, click "Cite" — this will open a second sky-blue bar. Click "Template" at the left-hand side of the second bar. For most citations, you can use "Cite news". Clicking that will open up a form. In the form, you can simply enter the information about the source you have found into the fields provided. Not every field has to be filled in; the most important are Last and First (the last and first names of the writer of the source), Title (the title of, for example, a magazine article), Work (the name of the magazine, newspaper, TV show etc. which published the source) and Date (the date the source was published). Access date is the date that you visited the website where you found the source, and there is a button next to that field which fills it in automatically. If the source is online, you should also fill in the URL field.
I hope this is clear enough, Heldexa~enwiki. If not, I (or another Teahouse volunteer) will go to the draft and put in a citation to give you an example to follow. Thank you for contributing to English Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Heldexa~enwiki. Here are a couple of links to pages to help you further with adding references: User:Yunshui/References for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners. The second one also have videos showing how you insert references. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_392&oldid=1144358217"